D&D 5E Do DM's feel that Sharpshooter & Great Weapon Master overpowered?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is not true. I showed the math on this above. GWM's cleave > +2 Str.

The math that makes the "cleave" feature more potent than +2 Strength makes too many assumptions to be useful.

I've seen, at my table, a character played for more than 6 months and not once yet be able to make that cleave attack.

He might get more opportunities if he were more lucky (as a 5% chance to crit doesn't mean exactly 1 in 20 attacks will crit), or if the rest of the party would start ignoring enemies with lower HP remaining (because getting to make a free attack if you drop an enemy to 0 doesn't mean it is going to be you, rather than the bard, monk, warlock, or other less-magical fighter taking that enemy's last few HP).

 

[Corwin]

As above I challenge you to provide math showing the alternative. The parameters were fully outlined above. This is just becoming a game of "go there and do this. Now, spell it out fully. Oh, it's spelt out? Well I'm going to ignore that and bring up this other thing without substantiating it with any math"

This is a balance discussion. You haven't provided any math and continuously ignore mine while asking for more. This is obviously a game to you and not one to be respected.

So you are conceding that you failed to fully represent the benefits of +2 strength before declaring GWM is better than +2 strength? That pretty soundly invalidates any math you presented, IMO. Don't you? I mean how can you claim your math is correct when you haven't applied every factor?

 

[Kryx]

The math that makes the "cleave" feature more potent than +2 Strength makes too many assumptions to be useful.

I've seen, at my table, a character played for more than 6 months and not once yet be able to make that cleave attack.

He might get more opportunities if he were more lucky (as a 5% chance to crit doesn't mean exactly 1 in 20 attacks will crit), or if the rest of the party would start ignoring enemies with lower HP remaining (because getting to make a free attack if you drop an enemy to 0 doesn't mean it is going to be you, rather than the bard, monk, warlock, or other less-magical fighter taking that enemy's last few HP).

A barbarian has a 18.5% chance to cleave every round so if you haven't seen it in months you're using it wrong. Though with a barbarian wielding a dagger...

Too many assumptions? Lol. It's nearly the same as the DMG hp per cr. Comparing to that would give us similar numbers so if you're unhappy with my assumptions throw those in and assume every enemy is at full hp for a change of less than 5% overall DPR.

 

[Kryx]

So you are conceding that you failed to fully represent the benefits of +2 strength before declaring GWM is better than +2 strength? That pretty soundly invalidates any math you presented, IMO. Don't you? I mean how can you claim your math is correct when you haven't applied every factor?

Discussing anything with you is seriously a waste of time. I've already spent hours providing you with math to only be asked for more while you do nothing but spout opinions.
I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is actually wanting to evaluate the situation. You're only interested in "winning" an internet argument. Nothx

 

[Tony Vargas]

A barbarian has a 18.5% chance to cleave every round so if you haven't seen it in months you're using it wrong.

Or facing a lot of lone or even just somewhat spread-out monsters, maybe?

Which is exactly the thing I've said to you numerous times so far - that something not working appropriate in one of our campaigns doesn't mean it won't work appropriately in another, which I acknowledge when I say things like "seems to be working as intended" because the thing can work without alteration, when you say things like "is broken." because it doesn't work appropriately in your campaign.

Y'know, my Samsung phone has never even gotten warm. I don't suppose that invalidates the problems people have had with them exploding, though. You're right, though, personal experience and PoV make a big difference.

 

[Corwin]

Discussing anything with you is seriously a waste of time. I've already spent hours providing you with math to only be asked for more while you do nothing but spout opinions.
I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is actually wanting to evaluate the situation. You're only interested in "winning" an internet argument. Nothx

Third time might be the charm. How did your math account for the fact that GWM doesn't increase attack bonus, strength save, leaping distance, Athletics skill, opposed checks using strength, nor carrying capacity? You need to factor all those substantive benefits into your "proof", that GWM > +2 strength, or your math is simply invalid. On its face.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

A barbarian has a 18.5% chance to cleave every round so if you haven't seen it in months you're using it wrong.

Firstly, a barbarian does not actually always have an 18.5% chance to cleave every round, and that ability is not granted without its own cost. And since it isn't an inherent trait of the feat, should not be counted against the feat nor assumed in the feats performance in any way.

Secondly, classes other than barbarian are allowed to take the feat. You've misunderstood something if you thought I was saying the character in question was a barbarian.

And lastly, barbarians don't gain the feat automatically, so there are actually some without it - the barbarian I mentioned, for example, whose player I mentioned in this thread does not have and does not intend to ever take the feat. He gets additional attacks as a bonus action by way of his frenzy class feature, so that portion of the great weapon master feat is less of a draw to him.

Too many assumptions? Lol. It's nearly the same as the DMG hp per cr. Comparing to that would give us similar numbers so if you're unhappy with my assumptions throw those in and assume every enemy is at full hp for a change of less than 5% overall DPR.

Assuming the average HP totals of the monsters faced in my campaign requires that you assume the entire roster of monsters that will appear throughout the entirety of the campaign, because to assume any less is to not be sure the assumed average HP value is correct.

So yes, too many assumptions.

 

[Kryx]

Or facing a lot of lone or even just somewhat spread-out monsters, maybe?

If you're fighting a lone enemy and it dies so you can't hit it again then you've won! Yay! Or if it's not dead then 18.5% of rounds you get to hit it again! Yay!

Spacing: the majority of encounters published in the official adventures, old adventures, PF adventure paths, etc would have no issue with spacing. If you're running a custom campaign and the gm is doing this purposefully then I'd suggest starting a discussion on ranged vs melee balance.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

18.5% of rounds you get to hit it again!

It's important to remember that phrasing impacts the truth of a statistic.

It isn't 18.5% of rounds that you get to hit it again.
It's an 18.5% chance in a given round that you get to hit it again.
(Allowing, of course, for that you obviously meant "attack" rather than "hit", and the needed rider of "when using reckless attack or otherwise having advantage" was implied.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Y'know, my Samsung phone has never even gotten warm. I don't suppose that invalidates the problems people have had with them exploding, though.

That would be a whole lot more relevant, as in at all relevant, had I told someone that their phone hasn't exploded (that the feat works fine in their campaign) rather than having told them that not all phones explode (that the feat works in other campaigns).